editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Theory of Scientific Change (view source)
Revision as of 16:32, 29 August 2016
, 16:32, 29 August 2016no edit summary
The role of methodologies in shaping methods under the TSC is indicated by the third law, under which the employed method is strictly determined by other methods and accepted theories of the time. A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.240-243]]
[[File:methodology-shapes-method.jpg|center|500px]].
== Open Questions ==
• The Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem says that employment of methods is not always necessarily a result of the acceptance of new theories. But surely all methods (even concrete implementations of abstract requirements) are employed simultaneously with the acceptance of a descriptive proposition which states that that method is effective. Does this poses a challenge towards the Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem? (Mirka Loiselle, 2016)
• Currently, the existence of a mosaic split is the only way for us as historians of science to identify a case of inconclusive theory assessment. However, it is logically possible (given the Laws of Scientific Change) for the result of theory assessment to be inconclusive and yet the entire community chooses to accept the theory. In this case, no mosaic split would occur. Is it possible to identify these cases in our historical analysis? (Paul Patton, 2016)
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|Prehistory====Ludwig Fleck 'Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact' 1935===
